Welcome to the first business day of our reinvigorated 10 year run!

Thanks to the sheer incompetence of Judicial Council staff leadership, we’re going to be spending the next ten years nipping at their heels.

Last week, the San Francisco trial court ruled that the Jacobs entities maintained their contractors license and that the 22.7 million that the Judicial Council should have been able to recover is actually money owed to Jacobs. Even after reading this decision carefully, we find many of the conclusions of the decision absurd.We primarily fault the AOC in doing everything possible to create a safe harbor to allow the defendant to walk away with the money.

For example: The ruling in the evidentiary hearing cites a previous ruling that both the jury and the court made the determination that the contracting Jacobs entities did not knowingly violate state contracting laws because the effective date of them allegedly finding out was not when it was reported to them in 2008, nor not when they were sued for not having a contractors license in 2009, nor not when they entered into the contract with allegedly no employees in 2006/2007, but when the appellate court ruled in 2013 that an evidentiary hearing would need to be held to determine if the contractor was licensed by which time Jacobs had successfully mounted a Hail Maryeffort in the legislature (Courtesy of the Jacobs “Good Government Fund”) to win their case by retroactively changing the underlying law and to point to a statement in the Appellate decision as the basis for the required change about disgorgement for a minor technicality (which it really wasn’t) being an absurd result.

The lawsuit and many of its conclusions were a smokescreen for what really happened in this case and that smokescreen has been perpetuated by both the defendants and on behalf of the plaintiffs employees that derived benefits from this arrangement.One big part of the smokescreen was the “rebranding initiative” where for a few years, not a single “Team Jacobs” document has a California state contractors license on it simply because “Team Jacobs” had no contractors license. Other documents filed with the Contractors State License Board indicated that the contracting entity had “no employees” manning hundreds of courthouses across the state, yet the courthouses were in fact manned, by a subcontract to ABM industries who also had no contractors license. None of these facts came up in trial and none were presented by the AOC. This was no accident and was intentional. The so called rebranding initiative was smokescreened as a joint venture between the Jacobs companies and not what it really was: a co-branding initiative between Jacobs and ABM.

ABM would not be involved in the lawsuit at all and would never be mentioned by anyone. No one would ever question who was getting paid to do the work, no one would ever question whose employees were manning all the courthouses under the contract.

This folks is corruption at its finest hour. And one of the reasons we have chosen to post little in the past couple months is because with the election of Mr. Trump, we felt that this was a continuance of the California government by kleptocracy that is about to be left in the shadows by our president elect such that we may never see either an appeal, nor justice in this case.

What we’re happy to see is that many of the employees involved in this scheme to cheat both the courts and the people were mostly all canned by the AOC but for us to even think of reconsidering another 10 years of AOC coverage, ALL INVOLVED must be fired leaving quite a few more jobs on the chopping block along with ALL INVOLVED with CCMS and CAFM. We remain sick of rewarding incompetent management – and by the way, so do your employees.

Several of them reached out to us about the pictures from Jody Patel’s alleged Halloween party that was themed in really poor taste “Orange is the new black”. According to a few emails received, though we never received the pictures we were promised because they were quickly taken off the intranet, the theme of the party had everyone making a joke out of incarceration in their cubicles, complete with orange jumpsuits and blackface.

Unfortunately, we were not provided with any of the pictures we were promised, though we’ve received several emails about the subject from offended employees. And yet a few people getting together to give someone a birthday cake at work was considered inappropriate?

Glad to see Courthouse News is fighting on for their rights. I hope the Feds hold CA Trial Court s in contempt if the court exec/clerk seeks to deny the press access to public records the day are are received. This is settled law now so the Feds should hold those court clerks in contempt, even remove them from office, for violating Federal Law. Reminds me of those clerks in marriage offices refusing to issue licenses to gay couples. Do your job under the law or get a new job. Sad this is happening in CA Courts.

This article was also my first time learning David Yamasaki is now the OC Court Executive. He should know better than to carry on this failed practice ther in OC given his education and experience.

A motorist who faced more than $1,600 in fines for a traffic violation is suing the Department of Motor Vehicles and the state Judicial Council in federal court, contending that millions of California drivers had their licenses suspended illegally because they were unable to pay spiraling fees.

“Traffic courts in California routinely impose exorbitant penalty assessments, fines and fees on all traffic court cases over and above the statutory fines” required for public safety, says Howard Herships of Sacramento, who authored the pending suit. “The exorbitant fines and fees are done for one purpose, and one purpose only, to fund the day-to-day operations of the courts in California,” he says.

Fines “are not geared toward public safety but rather toward raising revenue”

Hundreds of millions of dollars are raised for the court system through fees, penalties and other charges — $858 million in 2013-14, by one estimate — and several billion dollars over five years. The amount of fees owed the state but which go uncollected was about $11.2 billion, according to a January 2016 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The suit, which is expected to be filed next week in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, stems partly from a March 14, 2016, “Dear Colleagues” letter from the U.S. Justice Department to members of the judiciary across the country. Capitol Weekly reviewed copies of the pending suit and the nine-page letter.

The letter from the Department’s Civil Rights Division and Office for Public Access said that “recent years have seen an increased attention on the illegal enforcement of fines and fees in certain jurisdictions around the country,” often for misdemeanors and civil infractions.

“Typically, courts do not sentence defendants to incarceration in these cases; monetary fees are the norm,” the letter noted, adding that when the fines “are not geared toward public safety but rather toward raising revenue, they can cast doubt on the impartiality” of the judicial system.

The suit names the DMV for its role in regulating vehicles and its administrative procedures, as well as the Judicial Council, which administers California’s court system.

The document said the courts should not order someone jailed for non-payment, without first holding an indigency hearing and determining the failure to pay was willful. For those who can’t pay, courts should consider alternatives. Courts also should be wary of fee-collections by third party contractors, the Justice Department wrote.

The lawsuit contends that millions drivers whose licenses were suspended did not receive ability-to-pay hearings before their licenses were yanked. Herships asked the federal court to order a halt to the practice and require the state to hold ability-to-pay hearings for those facing fines and enforcement actions.

In Herships’ case, his license was lifted after failing to pay $1,665 in costs for a traffic violation — $200 for the original fine, plus $1,465 in penalty assessments. Herships, 73, who lives on a limited income, said the loss of license amounts to a lifetime driving suspension.

The suit names the DMV for its role in licensing and its administrative procedures, as well as the Judicial Council, which is headed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court and administers California’s court system.

During a recent amnesty period, “more than 175,000 Californians received amnesty fine and fee reductions and more than 153,000 Californians had their suspended driver’s licenses reinstated”

Meanwhile, a California lawmaker in an unrelated move introduced legislation this week targeting the same issue.

The bill, SB 185 by state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, would “prevent the automatic suspension of driver’s licenses for people who are unable to pay fines or fees for minor traffic tickets and require courts to determine violators’ ability to pay before setting fine amounts,” his office said.

In an earlier amnesty program authored by Hertzberg and signed by Gov. Brown, “more than 175,000 Californians received amnesty fine and fee reductions and more than 153,000 Californians had their suspended driver’s licenses reinstated” during the first nine months, his office said, citing Judicial Council figures. Click here for Capitol Weekly’s 2015 story on the issue.

Hership’s lawsuit notes that several years ago, a class action challenged the DMV’s procedures and the department wound up paying $5.6 million to settle case involving 573 drivers.

But there are an estimated 4.2 million drivers who had licenses suspended from 2006 to 2013. During the same period, only about 71,000 driver licenses were reinstated.

SAN DIEGO — Construction crews scrambled to remove fencing on the State Street side of the new San Diego Central Courthouse. It was obvious something was about to happen. It was 7 a.m. and it was the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, so traffic was almost non-existent.

The trial run

By 8 a.m., two San Diego County Sheriff’s prisoner transport vehicles, a bus and a box truck, pulled to the curb. People wearing safety vests and hard hats began taking measurements, checking the height and width of each vehicle and then the width of the narrow exit driveway both vehicles would have to navigate.

It was a dry run, organized after questions were raised about whether the vehicles used to transport prisoners would be able to drop-off and pick-up prisoners from the basement of the courthouse that’s set to open in May.

It was a close call.

The box truck, which can transport up to 34 prisoners at a time, pulled into the underground parking area under the 22-story courthouse, turning right into a secure sally port, where prisoners will be unloaded and placed in holding cells. From the sally port, the driver cranked the wheel to make another right turn onto the exit ramp.

The truck inched forward as several workers directed the driver as he maneuvered the vehicle up a concrete ramp. There were only inches to spare on either side of the truck, but the experienced driver handled it well.

The inmate bus was a different matter. Spectators could hear a loud scraping sound as it bottomed out the concrete ramp.

The Sheriff’s Department and the Judicial Council of California, which is responsible for the courthouse construction, both downplayed the problem.

A spokesman for the Judicial Council wrote: “The test was successful, except the rear bumper of the current generation bus scraped the ramp floor at two locations in the exit ramp. This scraping did not impede the bus travel. The concrete in these locations will be changed to make the ramp gradient slightly less steep; this adjustment is minor and will not change the overall cost or schedule for the new San Diego Central Courthouse.”

What happened to the underground tunnel?

When plans for the new courthouse were first announced they included “a secure underground connection to the nearby San Diego Central Jail”. That tunnel would allow deputies to walk prisoners the length of a short city block to the courthouse.

Because of budget cuts the California Administrative Office of the Courts cut the tunnel from the construction plans, instead building a courthouse that was “tunnel ready” should the Sheriff or county leaders decide to build it using their own money.

The old courthouse tunnel will be obsolete once the new courthouse opens and that means thousands of prisoners will ride, not walk, when they have appointments in front of a judge.

The Sheriff’s Role

“We’re working to make sure everything works as it should,” said Ryan Keim, a spokesman for the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. “We’re working with the contractor right now to find a solution, and that way we can have a seamless transition when we do move into the new courthouse in the summer.”

Kein told Team 10 the tunnel is important because its a more secure and efficient way to move inmates between buildings. He said safety isn’t an issue because the Sheriff’s Department safely transports about 150,000 prisoners per year without incident.

“No taxpayer dollars will be spent”

That was the promise made in 2014 when ground was broken on what would become the 22-story, 704,000-square-foot courthouse. It was paid for with court fees, penalties and assessments, made possible by assembly bill 1407. No money would come from the general fund, which belongs to taxpayers.

It’s a broken promise, according to Superior Court Judge Runston Maino, a vocal critic of the new courthouse. Maino says cutting the tunnel plans from the project was an expensive mistake. “I don’t know what it’s gonna cost the Sheriff to buy vans and to hire extra deputies to drive people over, as opposed to going through a tunnel, but in Long Beach it’s about a quarter of a million dollars a year, and it is not covered by 1407 funds,” said Maino, referring to another courthouse project without a tunnel to the jail.

Building a tunnel will cost an estimated $25-million. “They don’t have the money to do it,” said Maino. “They never had enough money to do it,” and that’s why Maino refers to the courthouse project as a “bait and switch”.

Team 10 contacted San Diego County to see whether the tunnel connecting the central jail to the courthouse would ever be built. This was the response from a county spokesperson:

“The County Board of Supervisors has authorized County officials to discuss the possible construction of the tunnel as part of the next phase of this overall downtown courthouse project-which is the demolition of the old courthouse at 220 West Broadway. The County believes that the demolition phase and eventual repurpose of the two downtown blocks where the old courthouse currently sits would provide a second opportunity to build the much-needed tunnel. Negotiations with the owners of the old courthouse, the California Judicial Council, are ongoing. We are hopeful that these negotiations will result in a tunnel being constructed as part of the process of demolition of the old courthouse.”

We’ll have to wait at least a couple of years to see if the tunnel ever materializes. Until then, count on seeing Sheriff’s Department vehicles shuttling prisoners back and forth from the jail.

Quote of the day: ““What is that really, really compelling soundbite we can come up with?”

Because telling the truth about how judicial branch administration is fiscally irresponsible, continues to misappropriate public funds, and annually wastes tens of millions of dollars, probably isn’t going to fly in Sacramento while they’re whining for more money, more money, more money.

Judges and court clerks from across California convened Thursday to consider a range of trial court funding priorities that will comprise the core of budget talks with the legislature in the coming months.

Central to Thursday’s discussion was the need for new money from California’s general fund to replace falling revenue from failure-to-appear penalties that courts can impose on people who don’t show up in court after being charged with traffic infractions, misdemeanors or felonies. Typically, offenders are given notice before such fines are assessed.

These $300 civil assessments can also be inflicted on offenders who disobey court orders or fail to pay their traffic tickets or other fines, and have lately been very unpopular with Governor Jerry Brown’s administration.

In 2015, Brown offered amnesty to reduce some traffic fine debt for the poor, a program supported by the state’s chief justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye. In his January budget plan for 2017-18, Brown proposed repealing the suspension of defendants’ driver’s licenses when they fail to pay traffic tickets or other fines—a move that spells a loss of tens of millions in revenue for the courts, cities, counties and special state programs.

Jake Chatters, the head clerk of Placer County Superior Court, said the reliance on fine and fee revenue creates the perception of a conflict of interest that courts generally want to avoid.
“A big portion of our concern is about ensuring we don’t degrade the services courts provide through revenue loss, and that sometimes gets confused [with] us sounding like we disagree with dialogue about policy changes,” Chatters told the judiciary’s Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee.

He said civil assessments are especially tricky. “By their nature civil assessments can give that appearance of a conflict of interest.”

“It hinders our efforts to discuss the revenue decline because it gets tied up in this broader policy discussion, and it would be good for us to get back to the policy discussion without having to worry about the revenue,” Chatters said. “We need to make sure we aren’t degrading our services, but we need to be part of the policy discussion without there being a perception that the revenue is guiding our discussions.”

One way of countering this would be to send the fine revenue directly to the state’s general fund, then adjust the judiciary’s general fund allocation by a comparable amount.

Sherri Carter, committee member and head clerk of Los Angeles County Superior Court, said she was on board with the idea. “We have not done a very good job making it clear that civil assessments have become part of our operating budget,” she said. “If we start giving the money back and having it reallocated, as it goes down it’s clearer that it’s part of our operational money. We haven’t done a good job tying how we’ve used that money to run our court and this would help us do that.”

“I think we would all be in agreement that if civil assessments go away, you break our backs,” said Judge Jonathan Conklin of Fresno, who chairs the budget advisory committee. “I’m trying not to be overly dramatic about this, but this has become a critical funding source to the courts. The policy perspective is this is really a trade-off. These are existing dollars—we’re just asking to account for the funding stream in a different way.”

Based on his experience working with the Department of Finance, Judicial Council member and advisor to the committee John Wardlaw said the committee will need to devise a strong game plan if it plans to compete with health and human services, education and the Department of Corrections for general fund money.

“What is that really, really compelling soundbite we can come up with?” he asked. “Intuitively, everyone understands that we need to be operating our courts, there’s not a question about that. There isn’t a really good understanding in the legislature and executive branch about what these decisions really mean to our courts and the people of California. It’s not resonating. The defenders of the general fund have a zillion priorities they’re going to safeguard before we get an opportunity to knock on the door.”

Committee member Judge James Herman of Santa Barbara said perhaps the judiciary should frame the issue in terms of revenue loss hurting the impoverished Californians Brown’s amnesty was intended to help. “The core of this from the gubernatorial and legislative perspective is there are people who are financially challenged in terms of civil assessments,” Herman said. “I think the soundbite here is that this is the same population that we provide a tremendous service to. It takes away our ability to serve the same people.”

Judge Joyce Hinrichs of Humboldt County said, “I think we need to say the courts don’t even want to be in the collection business or the deciding fines business and there should be a better way of addressing the whole issue of fines.”

The committee voted to pass the concept along to the Judicial Branch Budget Committee, another group that recommends budget change proposals to the full Judicial Council.

It also voted to forward proposals to fund juvenile dependency courts, and to provide an ongoing $41 million in annual inflationary funding, the equivalent of a 2.5 percent cost-of-living increase for trial court employees.

Note to the members of the State Legislature: Please don’t give judicial branch administration any additional funding until and unless they stop lying about what they’re doing with the public funding they already get and they stop the theft of public funds taking place at and within 455 Golden Gate Avenue.

Today’s installment of Tani’s Follies. Published February 16, from Courthouse News Service by Bill Girdner.

Quote of the day: “But the rot remains.”

Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. Those with plenty to hide waste public money doing this kind of stuff, especially when they are accountable to no one for doing so.

Not that anyone is going to do anything about that.

Obduracy Defined
BILL GIRDNER

When I read Maria Dinzeo’s article “California Judicial Branch Scrambles for Budget Dollars” last week, I wondered if the judges and clerks so concerned with their budget knew about the large sums paid to fight press access.

The context was that a couple weeks earlier, Courthouse News filed a First Amendment action in federal court challenging Orange County’s court clerk over his policy of withholding access to new civil complaints – a regular source of news – while his office grinds through the administrative process. We filed because delay is deadly to news.

The underlying legal issue is rapidly becoming settled. In December, a federal judge in New York enjoined Manhattan’s state court clerk from withholding new complaints during processing.

A few months earlier, a federal judge in Los Angeles enjoined Ventura’s state court clerk from withholding new complaints during processing. Judge James Otero in the Central District found that a First Amendment right of access attaches upon the clerk’s receipt of the documents.

Both decisions followed an earlier ruling by a federal judge in Houston who enjoined the state court clerk from withholding new cases during processing.

The only judge to have ruled otherwise was overturned by the Ninth Circuit.

So a few questions naturally arise: why is California’s court bureaucracy still fighting press access; why do a few California clerks believe they can refuse to follow those federal rulings; and why is California’s Judicial Council staff paying a white-shoe law firm to defend that refusal with scorched earth litigation.

Those decisions from within the bureaucracy, formerly called the Court Administrative Office and now called the “staff” of the California Judicial Council, reveal a rot inside the system.

It started many years ago with excessive pay and perks for bureaucrats, far above what similar jobs pay in federal courts, along with grand projects such as a software program called the Court Case Management System that cost $500 million before collapsing in ignominious failure. But the rot remains.

The battle of New York is apt.

In the past, with paper filings, the press corps in Manhattan’s state court had perfect access to all the new cases on the day they were filed. In the transition to e-filing, the clerk pushed the press down the line behind processing.

The federal challenge was a clean, quick fight, professionally and efficiently handled on both sides. The New York County clerk was ably represented by staff counsel for the administrative office of the courts. Courthouse News was represented by Bryan Cave.

One month after the federal complaint was filed, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos in the Southern District of New York enjoined the state court clerk from withholding access to the new civil complaints while they were processed.

Almost immediately, state court administrators communicated their intention to respect the ruling and pivoted.

In late January, the clerk in Manhattan began providing access to the new filings immediately upon their receipt. Journalists now see the new cases as they come into the clerk’s office, day or night, through what is essentially an electronic inbox.

Contrast that sequence of events with the actions and attitude of California court administrators. After paying the firm of Jones Day millions of dollars in a five-year campaign against press access in Ventura’s state court, they lost.

The Judicial Council staff, who ultimately answer to the chief justice, had vowed to appeal a loss. The appeal is now pending in the Ninth Circuit.

All that connects to Orange County, where Courthouse News is trying to enforce Judge Otero’s ruling. Before going to federal court, we sent a letter asking the Orange County clerk – who is within the Central District’s jurisdiction – to follow the federal ruling and give us access upon receipt. In-house counsel for Orange County Superior replied and said the clerk had no intention of changing his practice.

The in-house counsel, who is already accounted for in the local court’s budget, then handed the case off to a private law firm which will, if the past is any guide, generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in new public expense. That private representation, again Jones Day, was arranged by the Judicial Council staff.

So when I look through Dinzeo’s story about the budget agony of the California courts and I see that Judge James Herman of Santa Barbara is quoted as saying the courts should get more money because they serve the poor, I wonder if he is aware that the Santa Barbara court clerk has twice been asked in writing to stop withholding new cases. And the clerk continues to withhold.

Even the trumpster respected the courts and suspended his EO. I suppose familiarity breeds contempt within the AOC, eh? The unelected bureaucrats still think they’re in charge over the judges. What did Marty H say about his sensitive pencil pusher pals? The culture change may take 20 years. It’s hard for a thinking person like Bill Girdner to accept. He lives in the real world, not a luxurious ivory tower, I assume.

Based on an agreement and stipulation, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary censured a judge who said from the bench one day:

For your consideration, there’s a blood drive outside and if you do not have any money and you don’t want to go to jail, as an option to pay it, you can give blood today. If you do not have any money, go out there and give blood and bring in a receipt indicating that you gave blood. Consider that as a discount rather than putting you in jail, if you do not have any money. So, if you do not have any money and you don’t want to go to jail, consider giving blood today and bring your receipt back or the sheriff has enough handcuffs for those who do not have money.

In the Matter of Wiggins, Final judgment (Alabama Court of the Judiciary January 21, 2016). The judge made the statement while presiding over a docket designed to recover court-ordered costs, fees, fines, and restitution that had previously been imposed. Approximately 47 individuals donated blood that day at the mobile blood bank; 41 were defendants on the judge’s docket.

The second discipline case addressed a systemic pattern of unlawful incarcerations.

Adopting a disposition based on an agreement and stipulation, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspended a judge for 11 months without pay for jailing offenders for non-payment of fines and costs without inquiring into the reasons for non-payment as clearly required by law, incarcerating offenders for months without a written order, and delegating judicial authority to a private probation company.”

SACRAMENTO—Judges and executives representing 49 trial courts are calling on Gov. Jerry Brown to add $159 million to the judiciary’s budget, saying his hold-the-line spending plan will lead to employee layoffs and courtroom closures.

Although the governor’s budget proposal in January added a small amount of money to fund higher employee health care and retirement costs and to offset expected declines in fines and penalties, it did not include significant new spending on the judiciary.

“To put it simply, as our expenses rise and our external revenues decrease, any annual budget that does not contain an offsetting increase is, in very real terms, a budget cut for the courts and a reduction in access to justice for all Californians,” the judges and court executives wrote to Brown in a letter dated Feb. 16.

The signatories say they need more money for basic operations, such as employee salaries and rents. Proposals to eliminate a judge’s ability to suspend the driver’s licenses of defendants who fail to pay fines or appear in court also pose a threat to revenues, they wrote.

The criticism stands in contrast to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s response last month to the governor’s budget, which she called “prudent” given “the uncertainties in the state’s budget in the coming fiscal year.” She also said the judiciary would continue to press the governor for more money.

The judiciary’s administrative officer, Martin Hoshino, was not available for comment Tuesday.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, said Tuesday that Brown made tough decisions in the $179 billion spending plan, including not funding college scholarships for students from middle-class families and delaying $400 million in spending on affordable housing.

“Even at a time when we have taken these other steps to balance the budget and close a shortfall the governor’s budget provides enough general fund [money] to keep the judiciary budget at a stable level,” Palmer said.

Palmer also noted that a chief justice-appointed committee tasked with finding ways to modernize—and make more efficient—branch operations is expected to publish a report this spring, just before the governor releases his annual revision to the budget in May.

“Those recommendations would certainly inform our decisions as we look broadly at what the state’s overall budget picture looks like,” he said.

Stephen Nash, the court executive officer for Contra Costa County Superior Court, said most trial courts are anything but financially stable, warning that “we’re just about all heading over the edge.”

Nash said his court’s employees went seven years without raises. They’ll receive one in the next fiscal year. Nash said he doesn’t yet know where he will make cuts to cover the $1.5 million shortfall in the budget.

A number of other courts have faced labor troubles during contract negotiations in recent months. Some Sonoma County Superior Court employees went on strike in January, seeking better pay and working conditions. Santa Clara County Superior Court clerks walked out for eight days in August over stalled contract talks. Santa Cruz County Superior Court workers also went on strike for two days in November.

“Palmer also noted that a chief justice-appointed committee tasked with finding ways to modernize—and make more efficient—branch operations is expected to publish a report this spring, just before the governor releases his annual revision to the budget in May. ‘Those recommendations would certainly inform our decisions as we look broadly at what the state’s overall budget picture looks like,’ he said….The judiciary’s administrative officer, Martin Hoshino, was not available for comment Tuesday.”

That sounds to me like a pretty clear message the courts aren’t getting anymore funds until the JC/AOC adhere to the directives of the BSA audit; and that the ball’s in Hoshino’s and the JC’s court.

California has many very expensive items to pay for this year which simply take priority. But I think there is much more to the disconnection in Sacramento mentioned in the Recorder’s article. The CA Courts are down playing the fact that they are asking for $149 million more in money at a time while case filings statewide have fallen nearly 30% since 2009. That declining workload trend shows no signs of slowing either.

It takes a serious disconnect from reality on the part of CA Courts to leave out their own workload data as they press for more money. Stop saying to the press that the other branches are not getting the message. They hear your weak tea points but just don’t buy it given the scandal ridden reputation of the AOC.

Since the recession ended, the other branches have been paying the CA Courts more money to do less work to the point that they are having to back fill the declining fee revenues out of the General Fund to shore up CA Courts. A thank you to the other branches for doing this would be nice! Instead the CA Courts shamelessly ask for even more money. Notice there was no mention of WAFM by these 49 court execs and judges as a way to share resources from within the branch first. Shouldn’t the Judicial Council start there as agreed before going to the other branches seeking ever more money?

HD Palmer at DOF was right to mention the Chief’s Futures Report which is now quite overdue. What is the Chief’s plan to make the CA Courts more efficient and cost less in the future? How does she plan to handle the CA Courts likely losing millions of cases in the next decade or so when traffic tickets (“cases”) tank due to self driving cars becoming common?

I bet I can guess her plan. It goes like this: Give us more money (and pay no notice to our falling caseloads)! Yawn. Same old story.

Lets say they get the $149 million more this time. Then the Chief and JC will be right back to the other branches saying we also need $500 million for a new downtown Sacramento Courthouse and hundreds of millions more for new computer systems so we can finally get e-filing going. In those two examples the CA Courts will of course leave out the crazy cost of the LB Courthouse or the CCMS boondoogle. Oh, and CA Courts also still claims to need 100+ more judges according to the judicial workload formula. The formula was created by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) but CA Courts ask the other branches to please pretend not to know that CA Courts partially funds the NCSC. Do this to believe our formula is credible and not do your own analysis just as we ask you to overlook the ongoing decline in our case filings out of respect for us as an independent branch of government. You can trust us, we have robes on (forget those AOC audit reports).

I hope this long post explains the disconnet in Sacramento for Mr. Nash. His position makes me laugh. HaHA! Another AOC yes man who made it to the top as a CEO of a CA court. The only way to get ahead in CA Court administration is to be a shameless cheerleader even when facts are so clearly twisted or ignored. Fight On!

There is no “disconnect” in Sacramento. The only thing Judicial Branch administration knows how to do is whine poverty to the State Legislature. But the endless chants of “more money, more money, more money” (or the sky is going to fall in) from branch administration is finally falling on deaf ears in Sacramento, thanks to 455 Golden Gate Avenue’s own self-earned lack of credibility, entrenched dishonesty, delusional sense of entitlement, and enduring malfeasance and misappropriation of the public funds already entrusted to them. The State Legislature has grown tired of funding/rewarding this behavior and clued into the truth that Judicial Branch administration doesn’t deserve and shouldn’t get one more penny of public money.

Martin Hoshino stated it would take “20 years” or more to “change the culture” of Judicial Branch administration. Fair enough. Ask the State Legislature, and by extension the tax paying public, for “more money” in 20 years, when, and if, the culture of lying and thieving and wasting public money at 455 Golden Gate Avenue has changed.. Until then, stop the whining for “more money” and shut up.

Talk to the legislature when you end traffic court lines via arraignment by mail. You can plead guilty by mail but you can’t plead innocent. For an innocence plea, it’s 3 trips to the courthouse and courts should not get a penny more until they make that more efficient with arraignment by mail.

JCW,
Check out Vehicle Code section 40519. “Trial scheduling; written not guilty plea”
The only problem is that the statute requires that you post bail with assessments at the time of entry of plea. Most places don’t seem to be aware of this code section. When you enter your plea you refuse to waive time. The date you receive from the court will be for both your “arraignment” and “trial”. I’ve seen countless instances in which the clerks forget to send notice of trial to the law enforcement agencies when you follow this procedure. If the officer doesn’t show up on the date indicated, the case has to be dismissed. If found not guilty, your advanced fine and fees will be returned by the court. Good trick that’s been around since 1975. Those lawyers aware of the section don’t want to use it very often or the agencies will get wise and change their procedures if confronted with it a lot,.
Nat

Mr. Hoshino spent 13 minutes at the Jan 19, 2017 JC meeting describing what they are doing right and disappointment at lack of more funding. No mention of plans to move the AOC from San Francisco to lesser expensive Sacramento, leasing less fleet cars, or any of the other BSA cost-saving recommendations. I don’t understand why the courts think that the legislators will give them more money when cost-saving/streamlining/downsizing audit recommendations are not being adhered to by the branch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HejPcG2rr4

So slap me down and call me Jesus! (an old Southern saying) I can PROVE what you all have been screaming of for years re: Tani not being a good steward of the CA judicial branch –via statements she made on record, Feb 9th, 2017

I am excited that Governor Brown can reshape the CA Supreme Court with another of his own appointees. Hopefully soon the culture of the CA Judicial Council will change too as Martin Yoshino’s 20 year estimate for reform is a long time to wait.

Back from the mountain top for supplies. I’ll only be in contact for a day or two. Looks like the site is sadly starting to fall by the wayside. Thanks for your efforts over the years JCW. There was a long time when this website was the first thing I read in the morning and last thing viewed at night. It’s been a good run. My best to Wendy, unionman575, wearyant, and Maxrebo5, You’ve been great contributors over the years!

I’ve given up on the California Courts. Having suffered through Governor Moonbeam’s first go at being Governor, the second time around is really nothing new. The Supreme Court is being filled with people with no trial experience and no real life experience. As a result, the majority of the opinions reflect their lack of practical knowledge, whatever your political persuasion may be.

The trial judges being appointed are in many instances boobs. There are all asking for weeks of “training” before they have to handle calendars or cases themselves. Jeez, I remember my first day consisted of a 125 line arraignment calendar followed by a Law & Motion calendar. Training, what training, I spent years learning the job as a trial lawyers. Maybe its a good thing there are so many vacancies on the trial courts as there are less problem children to deal with. My former place is a complete disaster. Civil cases are all coming up on their 5-year statutes and there is no way they will ever get out to trial. Criminal trial calendars are as long as our old arraignment calendars. There is a disturbing trend where former AOC (JC) employees are showing up in administrative positions within many trial courts, causing them to reflect the culture of the AOC. Sadly, newer judges have no idea what their roles are and more often than not are happy to concede power to their employees which is a huge mistake. Even the venire pool for the juries are getting more and more vocal and demanding. Too many techies claiming they are too important to be there and that they won’t promise to follow the law unless it follows their conscience. What a world…

Time to retreat back to the mountain top, enjoy God’s gifts and hopefully make some positive differences in the lives of some of the younger generation by volunteering in schools and teaching at law school. It is scary to see how little they know about history or civics. Apparently we somehow stopped teaching those subjects in our public schools.

Yes, this website does not seem to have the zip that it had in past years. I hope this changes as the incompetence and disregard of the public good by many members of the Judicial Council and our court leadership is a target rich environment for a website such as this one.

I wish to thank Nathaniel Woodhull, Unionman575, Wearyant, and Maxrebo5 for the information and insights you have provided over the years.

Nice to hear from you Tony! It seems like just yesterday that Edmund G. appointed you to the Muni bench. If I ever get back to San Diego I’ll give you a call and buy you a beer.
I want to say a few things about my personal insights over the years. Everyone should appreciate the fact that Tony has been an outspoken advocate for doing the “right thing” with regard to our court system since the early-80’s. His leadership long pre-dated the AOC Watcher and JCW. He is a straight-shooter and does what his conscience tells him to do without regard to the personal consequences. I remember when he found that the DA’s Office was failing to comply with a timing requirement for filing DUI cases. Despite warnings, their office continued to violate the statute. Tony had the guts to start dismissing those DUI cases not filed within the statutory period. The DA at the time, Edwin Miller, was furious and had his deputies paper Tony for a while, which resulted in a different result than what the DA expected. The DA should have simply ensured that his people were following the law. The DA’s decision to take on Judge Maino resulted it being pointed out that under Mr. Miller’s “leadership” his prosecutors weren’t pursuing serious crimes with much vigor, resulting in quite the series of newspaper headlines. (It should be noted that the late DA Miller did do a lot of good things as DA, really helping turning around problems in San Diego with the help of then Mayor Pete Wilson and others. He just shouldn’t have taken on Tony!)
In recent years, Judge Maino has shown that he still won’t take any crap from the AOC (sorry, I can’t call it the JC). When he sees a problem he’s got the fortitude to call them out for their “issues” and unlike complainers, Tony proposes common sense solutions to the issues created by these bureaucrats. Too bad they just won’t listen.
Keep up the good fight!

Off topic, but of interest.
***************************************************************
In federal court — over a traffic ticket
by MATTHEW KRAMER posted 03.14.2017

Traffic tickets aren’t so out of the ordinary – until you get to Howard Herships’ case.

After being caught by a red light camera on a right turn in suburban Sacramento, Herships, 73, contested the $200 ticket.

His fight has proven costly to Herships, who lost his driver’s license: The 2014 ticket penalty ballooned more than eight-fold to a whopping $1,665 in addition to a $55 driver’s license reinstatement fee, costs Herships said he couldn’t afford.

But the crux of the case isn’t the ticket. It’s the way California’s court system pays the salaries of its judges and employees. Judges impose fines, then use that money to pay themselves and other court workers, Herships argues.

“The judge who finds you guilty, his salary and benefits – health insurance and everything else – is paid for out of the guilty verdict,” Herships said. “It doesn’t make sense…you can’t have any financial interest in the outcome of the case.”

So Herships has gone to federal court to block the practice, citing a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision and a March 2016 U.S. Justice Department letter to prosecutors across the country saying judicial authorities should have no pecuniary interest in the fines they impose. He is seeking a court order to block the practice in California, targeting the state Department of Motor Vehicles, the Sacramento County Superior Court and the California Judicial Council, which administers the state court system.

By one estimate, $858 million were raised in 2013 -2014, and these fees rose to the tune of several billion dollars over five years. According to a January 2016 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state has $11.2 billion in outstanding fees, uncollected by fined residents.

Herships contends that California’s courts use traffic fines as self-funding revenue streams, despite the Supreme Court decision and the Justice Department’s directive. Representing himself in court, Herships filed the original suit on the grounds that he and millions of Californians had had their licenses illegally suspended after failure to pay exorbitant traffic fines and grossly inflated related fees. The traffic courts are directly funding their daily operating costs through these traffic fines – and this, he claims, represents a conflict of interest. He also contends that the courts don’t properly hold hearings on a defendant’s ability to pay the fine.

By one estimate, $858 million were raised in 2013 -2014, and these fees rose to the tune of several billion dollars over five years. According to a January 2016 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state has $11.2 billion in outstanding fees, uncollected by fined residents.

After being denied an initial state court hearing on his ability to pay the fine, Herships went to federal court. He asked that the state halt license-suspension practices and hold ability-to-pay hearings for those facing enforcement over traffic infractions.

In his case, the hearing denial was illegal, he says. He cited a state court rule — Rule 4.335 – which requires that one of the factors a judge must weigh in deciding whether to order an ability- to-pay hearing is a defendant’s “receipt of public benefits,” including Medi-Cal. Herships receives health coverage through Medi-Cal.

Herships followed up by seeking a restraining order against the state agencies involved.

The letter March 2016 letter from the Justice Department said that “recent years have seen an increased attention on the illegal enforcement of fines and fees in certain jurisdictions around the country.”

On Feb. 6, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and representatives of the California Judicial Council held a conference with Herships. Out of that conference it was agreed that a ruling on his restraining order request would be given. The federal court ordered the state reply to his request for a restraining order — which the state did this week, opposing the restraining order — and Herships was given until March 20 to respond to the state. Rogers will then decide whether to issue the restraining order.

If the order is granted, Herships said that will be end of the case for him. But such a restraining order would only be temporary – and if Herships ultimately wins in court it could set a precedent and represent a landmark legal alteration which Herships said could cost the state of California approximately $2 billion in dismissed fines.

Herships remains determined if not optimistic.

“I’m requesting a temporary restraining order prohibiting their conduct,” he said. “You never get a fair determination; the judge has to look out where his paycheck is coming from.”

In part, his suit stems from the March 2016 “Dear Colleagues” memorandum. The letter from the Department’s Civil Rights Division and Office for Public Access said that “recent years have seen an increased attention on the illegal enforcement of fines and fees in certain jurisdictions around the country,” often for misdemeanors and civil infractions.

“Typically, courts do not sentence defendants to incarceration in these cases; monetary fees are the norm,” the letter noted, adding that when the fines “are not geared toward public safety but rather toward raising revenue, they can cast doubt on the impartiality” of the judicial system.

As part of his federal court filing in Oakland, Herships cited a 1972 decision, Ward v. Village of Monroeville. In that case, which involved an Ohio village official who also served as a judge and imposed fines that supported the court, in which the U.S. Supreme Court gave the opinion:

“This, too, is a situation in which an official perforce occupies two practically and seriously inconsistent positions, one partisan and the other judicial, [and] necessarily involves a lack of due process of law in the trial of defendants charged with crimes before him.”

Herships believes this is a strong boon to his own case, where he sees a conflict of interest between the court’s role in imposing fines and, he claims, standing to profit from the collection of those fines.

“Here we have a system in California in which the traffic court judge must find the traffic court defendant guilty to maintain the funding based upon the penalty assessments, fines, and fees which total $1 billion annually,” Herships said in an email.

Parallel to Herships’ case is SB 185 – a bill put forward by state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys. SB 185 would halt the automatic suspension of driver’s licenses for people unable to pay fines and fees for minor traffic tickets. Further, it would require that courts determine an individual’s ability to pay on a case by case basis before setting fine amounts, according to Hertzberg’s office.

Capitol Weekly previously reported that one in six California drivers, approximately 4.2 million people, have suspended licenses because of inability to pay fines. This was the impetus for Hertzberg’s bill.

“Under existing law, it is virtually impossible for the driver’s license to be restored until all the unpaid fees, fines and assessments are completely paid. This jeopardizes economic stability in the state, limits the available workforce, and forces employers to bear the cost of replacing workers and finding qualified replacement workers with valid licenses,” according to Hertzberg’s office.

Whether Herships’ own case is decided in his favor or not it has already set a precedent in how far it has been taken. What follows the decision over a temporary restraining order remains to be seen.

The DMV and the Judicial Council returned request for comment saying that they have a policy to not comment on ongoing litigation.

I think that story is 100% on topic. There is still a “traffic court hellhole” as Governor Brown called it in California Courts. The public has little idea of the depth of this problem and how much it corrupts the branch. Only when a person gets a speeding ticket does one start to personally wonder, as Hership did, what the heck is going on here? The base fine is often like $40.00 for the traffic offense but all the admin and court fees comes to around $300.00. It is nuts! This process is repeated millions of times a year on traffic tickets and it significantly funds branch operations. The CA Court judges are fully aware that those fines and fees help pay the bills for the Superior Courts as well as for the facilities work in. Somehow they pretent to be neutral figures at traffic court hearings but in reality they are willing participants in a very corrupt process.

All CA Court judges with honor should be saying this funding process is not fair to us as judges. Nor is it impartial in any way to millions of Californians who deserve a fair hearing. Hership is 100% right in his case. The judge in his dispute is not a neutral figure and he is absolutely being denied due process if one takes “due” to mean a “fair” process. Would you think it fair if the ref in a basketball game was paid in part whenever one team made a basket? Hell no! The ref would no longer be neutral at all. That’s pretty close to what we have going on when a member of the public goes to court to contest a traffic ticket. The judge has a vested interest in the fines and fees being imposed and upheld. This is also what the riots in Furgusson Missouri exposed last year. It was a cash making machine between law enforcement and that local court. It is a joke! The branch gets away with it because most people just pay the traffic fine outside of court without even contesting the ticket. The public’s apathy and ignorance of the process does not make it right for the court to keep it in place.

The CA Courts desperately need a different funding source. The reason I think the judges don’t seek a change is they like the reliability of the funding from the traffic fees. If they speak up and say someone like Hership is right the judges secretly fear the legislature will not come up with another reliable funding source to fund CA Courts to the current level. Nevertheless, that is the correct path to follow.

The judges and Judicial Council fear the legislature might audit their actual workload and then the number of CA judges needed would for sure come into question. Judgeships would very likely be lost! The “case” filings right now don’t justify the nearly 2,000 judges in California. The whole house of cards comes crashing down and I do not think I am exaggerating here.

The millions of traffic tickets the CA Courts are calling “cases” makes it look like CA Courts are doing far more work than judges are actually are handling in their courtrooms. The judicial workload formula by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) is designed to justify the judicial need outcome they want which is basically an outcome that always says we need more judges. As long as they have “case” filings coming in the door they can fudge anything else they want to in their formula as they control it. The CA Courts says on their web page they handle 8 million cases. Here is my source for this claim:

In realiity case filings are in major decline in California courts and are now down to 6.8 million a year. Even this 6.8 milion is deceptive as most of those “cases” are the traffic tickets the public pays online to avoid the waste of time plus money it is to try and fight their ticket in court. The fact that the public is paying their traffic fines online means there is ZERO judge time needed for several million of these uncontested cases yet the branch is getting workload credit for judgeships on all of these cases. This is a house of cards!

Do we need to pay for 2,000 judges each making $200,000 a year? I say no as I have ethics and question those in charge. This is why the Judicial Council is controlled from the top and only folks who play along get appointed to it. To say what I am saying here is profesional death for any court administator trained in public administration. I think my position is both ethically correct and mathmatically correct and that is why I am no longer work in CA Courts. It is only yes men running CA Courts. They are all “at will” court executives and staff so they all know how to play along and not rock the boat if they want to keep their own six figure salaries. They are mostly corrupt too.

Walk through your local trial court on a Friday. I’ll bet you it is a ghost town. There are very few judges there as most don’t work on Fridays. Clerks say their courtroom is “dark” and this implies judges are working in chambers but the judge’s parking lot is virtually empty. Most are not even in the building. This happens all around CA Courts as a four day work week is the accepted cultural practice and has been for years. This great life for judges is all propped up by traffic tickets paying the bills and so the legislature does not investigate what the heck is going on in their sister branch.

There is no need to check on the branch as long as the fees come pouring in. The problem is the filings are down now and the fee revenue has been coming up short in recent years. The legislature is having to pay millions more for the branch’s out of the General Fund and it is likely only going to get more expensive for the Legislature going forward.

I have been saying for years now that this funding model for CA Courts is almost finished. I say this not because I believe the CA Judges are getting a long overdue conscience and want to be truely impartial to their parties before them. Nor is it based on my faith in a good citizen like Hership winning in Federal Court to force the needed reforms. I am 100% cynical about the level of corruption here and trust in the power of those in government to maintain the status quo.

My view is the private sector and new technology (self drving cars) are coming and the insiders in CA Courts cannot control this change. With self driving cars and time there go all the traffic tickets and the fees! That will mean the Legislature will be someday be having to pay the full costs of CA Courts without the traffic fines and fees propping the system up for the first time and it is going to be very expensive! The house of cards then is fully exposed and it all comes down. This is what it means to say it will takes20 years to reform CA Courts. What I think Hoshino really means is it is not actually going to be reformed from within. Instead reform will be resisted from within but the system will eventually come crashing down because it failed to address it’s bad design. If you think about it, its’ alot like how Lake Oroville Dam was run which now is in ruins and will be very expensive to fix too.

I haven’t commented on this site in a long time and agree that it seems to be dying on the vine. Max, I absolutely agree with your comments about the size of traffic fines after all of the penalty assessments are tacked on – the legislature has to fix that travesty, but may not have the cojones to tackle the issue.

As far as courthouses being ghost towns on Fridays, you apparently have not spent time in our jurisdiction. Friday’s are one of our busiest days, and there is absolutely no four day a week work culture for our judges. If courts are able to have their judges work only four days a week, I would maintain that they are seriously overjudged!

Perhaps so Jimmy in smaller courts. I have worked in Orange County Superior Court, San Mateo Superior Court, and Sacramento Superior Court. All three of the large county courts I worked in had a culture of dark departments on Fridays. I suspect some smaller county courts don’t have the luxury of such a practice but in the larger urban trial courts it is a commonplace. Today is a Friday and St. Patrick’s Day! Go visit a large urban county courthouse in California and see how many dark departments you find. I’m not making this up just talking about what I saw on a regular basis.

I think Trump suffers from severe narcissism (Anti Social Personality Disorder – ASPD) but he did just win a national election specifically saying he was going to vigorously enforce our existing immigration laws if he won. To me his actions on immigration are no different than if he said he was going to enforce the Federal Pot ban despite several states making pot legal for recreational use. I’m not for that increased enforcement happening but Trump could do it and it would be 100% legal under Federal law which supercedes state law.

I think LA Superior Court handled this issue correctly in the article and the Chief should have remained silent as she does not have a leg to stand on under the law. Why piss off a nut job narcissistic President when you don’t have to especially if the law is not on your side? That is a HUGE mistake.

In contrast, the Oregon and now Hawaii state officials were right to fight Trump’s two recent new executive orders on immigration in Federal Court. Those states were saying that both of those new executlve orders amount to bans on muslims which is unconstitutional under Federal law. Federal courts have ruled three times now (two at the district court level and once at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ) to block those new executve orders. What is the CA Chief saying is wrong under the law in her new letter? Nothing! She just wants the CA Courts to be buildings outside of Federal law enforcement and therefore outside of Federal law which has never been nor will ever be the case. Her position is delusional.

ICE can enforce Federal imigration law in any part of the United States and that includes CA Courthouses. Federal Law trumps (no pun intended) the Chief’s personal opinion of what CA Courts are supposed to be. By her letter’s logic is it’s OK to for ICE to round up illegals immigrants anyplace else but the CA Courts are some magical place where that enforcement should not happen. The presumption being that the legal matters the parties are discussing are more important than Federal Immigration Law? That’s a really dumb idea to express bt the Chief Justice of California. It is just shamefully stupid.

Those matters may indeed be important but Federal Law does not end at the CA Courthouse door. CA Courts must follow Federal Court decisions and Federal law very much enters every single state courthouse every day. For example the right to an attorney in a criminal case is a Federal decision by the US Supreme Court in Gideon. As a result, CA Courts, indeed all state courts, are required to make sure parties are offered an attorney at no cost if they cannot afford one when there is the potential for jail time. That’s the way the US Constitution is set up. She should know this stuff!

She loves to be the one talking about CA Courts to schools, to appear to be a champion of the oppressed, but in reality a large part of her beloved CA Courts is requires huge cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. The branch she holds so dear is majorly funded by corrupt traffic fees that disproportionately hurt the poor. The branch she speaks so highy of has been plagued by the scandals of CCMS and the LB Courthouse which the branch does not take any responsibility for (much like Trump). I say Tani should have stayed silent on this Federal issue and fixed what was her duty to fix within her control as Chief. Since she has not for many years now she owns that corruption in CA Courts as her own. Those in glass houses should not throw stones. Let the new CA Attorney General, who is hispanic and a child of legal immigrants himself file a case in Federal Court if the US Constitution is being broken in California by ICE. He’d be happy to do it but otherwise this is just very stupid rhetoric on Tani’s part in my opinion.

I see this as action by the Chief as similar to Angelina Jolie pretending to be a champion of refugees to the UN. Did you all know Angie is now is a visiting professor to the London School of Economics. No kid you not It’s just crazy ego on her part. In reality Angie just tried to alienate her six kids from their father (Brad Pitt) by accusing him of child abuse for which he was 100% cleared by the FBI and DCFS. Angie jets around the world with those kids not in schools (three of which she adopted), and she pretends to be this saint figure helping refugees. In truth she can’t run her own home, has ruined her reputation in Hollywood, bareley has a HS diploma, was admitted to UCLA for mental problems, is estranged from her father Jon Voight because he publicly said she was a sociopath, and now eats spiders with her kids to promote her latest film on Netflix. We all recall her breaking Jen’s marriage to Brad, how she infamously kissed her brother on the mouth at the Oscars, and who could forget the viles of blood with Billy Bob Thorton. Have you seen her skin is now covered in tattoos? She hides them all when she speaks to the UN or students.

Apparently Angie is the best person for students at a top college in England to listen too and this is not fiction but is really happening. Why is this happening? Because Angie a total narcissist with ASPD. This also why Angelina Jolie is just like Trump, is just like Lance Armstrong (another sociopath), and I am starting to think our Chief Justice has some narcisstic traits going on too based on her behavior. Their narcissism is their common bond and is why they are always so confident but it also why they are not able to own up to their flaws or to having made a mistake. Think of Lance. He never really feels bad he cheated even though he admits he did it. He says he would do it again if given the chance and has no empathy for his victims. Trump can’t own upp to any mistakes either as the whole wiretapping lie shows.

The mistake we all make is in giving their ideas more weight than our own because of their positions, their great confidence, or because of their looks. They come across as so sure they are right but very often they are just plain wrong on basic facts or they could be lying. I say consider all ideas from all sources but also think for yourself. Fight on!

R.I.P. my old friend J.C.W. Nothing new here in so long it’s not worth following anymore.
Good luck to all the old time contributors dating back to the AOC Watcher days. Those behind JCW should be praised for all they did over the years. The members of the Legislature actually read and followed this site at one time. Sadly, the Evil Empire has take over and the newer judges appointed over the last ten years are predominately “snowflakes” more concerned about not work too terribly hard than they are in serving the public. In my old Court I would exercise a 170.6 CCP challenge in the vast majority of the Departments there. As I tell all my friends now, whatever your dispute, settle it out of court because God only knows what will happen if you go to court, it certainly isn’t likely to be justice.

Best wishes General Woodhull! The fight goes on here in CA as nothing is changing at the top of CA Courts and it won’t if everyone tunes out or gives up. I love CA so I’m going to do what I can for as long as I can.

Courthouse News reports the Chief Justice gave her State of the Judicuary address:

I think she made a calculated political spin move to use the immigration issue as a way to lobby for more branch funding. Like saying if you want to stand up to the Trump administration you can do so by funding the CA Courts. Such a move fires up an angry Democratic CA legislature and it also helps her divert attention from the real facts she desperately wants to hide.

She avoided talking about the fact that CA Court’s own workload numbers say case filings are down by 30% since 2009 (and are still falling). Instead the Chief expressses concern for vulnerable people (illegal immigrants) and therefore CA Courts deserves more money. That’s her go to mantra she always wants to get back to.

We’re way past rational decision making for the CA Courts budget. It’s now nearing religious fervor of more money more money. Nobody checks her on it either. What does illegal immigrantion have to do with CA Court funding? Nothing! But it does distract from the real facts which are case filings are way down, the legislature is having to shore up the branch from the General Fund due to less fee revenue coming in, and the 19,000 branch employees want raises to handle less work. That’s the reality and such facts won’t sell to the public’s representatives so instead she played off the Legislatures dislike of Trump as she did and it’s a perfect red herring. Based on the workload facts CA Court funding should be cut in 2017/2018.

Skip to 10:18 where the Chief is proud and excited (hands up) for the overdue futures report. Somehow that thought about her overdue report takes the Chief to claim the CA Courts are inadequately funded. I swear she makes that exact transition. Watch the video. Haha!

The Chief Justice mentioned proudly (and accurately) in her speech that there is no limit on the number of case filings in courts. However, she failed to mention in her address that case filings have been consistently falling every single year now since 2009. Case filings are down nearly 30% statewide yet funding for the branch is way up for several years in a row. An inconvenient truth so she just bypassed that topic entirely.

Here is where her logic gets nuts. Instead of focussing on case filings she then says since 2011 there were thousands of new laws passed while the judicial branch budget has shrunken. New laws being passed does not mean new cases are coming in the door. New case filings means the courts need more resources not new laws. So now the branch should be funded by the number of new laws passed? That was just a garbage idea she never should have expressed.

The Chief says she’s interested in access and fairness in CA Courts yet she alone appoints every single member of the Judicial Council so that it speaks always with one voice (hers). She says the branch reaches out to vulnerable groups but she has crushed all opinions within the branch from staff or judges who have different viewpoints. Only yes people get to the top not those who have other views like the Alliance of CA Judges.

Oh and she says the branch needs an investment in our courthouses and she used the word infrastructure. But the voters just approved and the JC spent 5 billion dolars for new courthouses in California. The state has HUGE infrastructure issues from dams to roads to prisons but CA Court facilities are not at the top of that list. They just got billions for courthouse infrastructure and a new computer system (CCMS) and it was mismanaged so bad they had to pull the plug. Another year, another plea for more money. It does have comedy value though!

Having read the recent posts here from General Woodhull, Judge Maino, MaxRebo, etc., I respectfully respond as follows:

With good reason, I, too, have given up on the California courts, along with any further exercises in futility, including hope. If others wish to continue to tilt at windmills, so be it; I will not be among them.

It is one thing for lying, thievery, fraud, embezzlement, corruption, dishonesty, nepotism, misappropriation of public funds, breach of fiduciary duty by public officials, to name just a few of the bad behaviors taking place at and within the administration of the California Judicial Branch. After all, the dishonest, fraudulent. and/or self-serving use of a public officials position, authority, and power to their personal benefit has been around since at least the days of the Romans, if not before. So it’s not like public corruption is something new or novel.

What has been, and continues to be, another thing entirely, is not just the failure, but the out-right refusal, of every single public office or outside enforcement authority, of any kind, to do anything – ;anything at all – about any of it. This, despite being provided with volumes of documentation, despite numerous investigations, despite hearings before the State Legislature, despite several audits, among other evidence, of the lying, thievery, fraud, embezzlement, corruption, dishonesty, nepotism, misappropriation of public funds, breach of fiduciary duty by public officials, taking place at and within the administration of the California Judicial Branch. Despite all of this, every single office, every outside enforcement agency – every single one – have, and continue to, knowingly fail to act. And so all of it, in one form or another, continues on, unabated, at and within branch administration. This means one thing, and one thing only: It is being allowed to happen. It is being permitted.

So be it. Knowing that, and with all due respect to General Woodhull, Judge Maino, MaxRebo, and any others who remain here, so be it. I, personally, am not going to listen to one more person, one more public official, one more outside enforcement office, to state, in what ever word-smithed vernacular of choice. “We won’t touch the judges.” I understand and, more importantly, have accepted, that fraud and corruption in the administration of the California Judicial Branch is being permitted

As I, and many others, have learned in the past 10 years, watching the cesspool engulf 455 Golden Gate Avenue, what is the point of doing the right thing and telling the truth if the one and only result is that you will be brutally punished for doing so? And that anyone with the ability to intervene and stop that from happening, at best will simply watch and do nothing, or, at worst, will aid and assist in the beating. The list of people that has happened to at 455 Golden Gate Avenue is pretty long at this point, and everyone has gotten the message. With all due respect General Woodhull and Judge Maino, you can’t reasonably expect people to continue to report things when time after time after time the only result is watching someone’s career made a living hell, and their life ruined, because they had the stupidity to report or otherwise tell the truth about unethical and unlawful activities within branch administration.

So please let myself, and many others, know when and if this changes. As misconduct by branch administration is being allowed to happen, it’s likely that time will not be coming any time soon. (Crickets chirping.)

Until such a time, I concede the field to Don Quixote and all who choose to valorously go forth tilting at windmills.

Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians. And being allowed to do so.

“It only seems quicker to skip broad reform efforts and try wrenching justice from woefully corrupt systems. Walls across America are lined with the boxing gloves of advocates who fought that fight in vain. Folks who went toe-to-toe; boxing it out with titans who directly or indirectly control major media and every juncture of oversight from your city hall to the United Nations. And when our websites, petitions, and the like are shuttered once and for all, these Godzillas of corruption continue delivering injustice unscathed….Raw persistence does not transform any grassroots challenge of entrenched U.S. legal system abuse into a proverbial walk in the park. But the opposite of simple does not have to be impossible or unmanageable. Those who yearn for justice must, in fact, want justice which is a process in this age of rampant corruption. So rise from the grip of injustice and bask in the process of justice! It entails methodically securing unequivocal, meaningful relief for all in need, primarily through mutual support, while also attending to the systemic malfunctions and dysfunctions that birthed our difficulties…..”

“But it is not our conspicuous losses that those who regularly abuse America’s legal system want most. Instead, it is our metaphorical boxing gloves pinned on walls throughout the United States. These boxing gloves are hung, not only when good Americans lose personal fights to injustice, but also when we decide that resisting the injustice — the persistent U.S. legal system abuse — is futile”

Most people do not realize that the traffic court actually funds the day to day trial court operations. California codified under the California Gov. Code sections 65085 (a) (1) and 77003, that all penalties assessments and fines and fees actual pays the very judicial officers’ salaries and benefits as all those funds are deposited intot he “Trail Court Trust Fund and are use dto pay the judges salary they have actual revenue of some 2 billion dollars annually

Exactly Howard Herships! I want judges to be 100% neutral figures in cases before them. If CA Courts benefit from those fines and fees because those court fees pay for court facilities and operations then those judges are no longer neutral figures for those cases before them. It is like if the referees in a football game can help finance a fancy office for himself in the home team’s new arena every time the home team scores points. That’s not a fair referee at all! Fans of the game would not support such a clearly biased system but with traffic cases that is exactly what the CA public gets.

The CA Judicial Council has actually doubled down and supported increases to the fines and fees over the past decade or so to get 5 billion in CA Courthouse construction funding under SB 1407. That law should be found unconstutional by the Federal Courts or by the CA Supreme Court as it deprives millions of California residents in traffic disputes from receiving a fair hearing. As I see it, the current system violates the public’s due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The Chief tried to pretend by ending the practice of having citizens pay the fines and fees before going to court, as was the old practice, that she’d fixed the problem. No! The problem is still there because the fines and fees which fund the courts remain in place. The branch needs to have no ties to the outcome of a traffic case (or any case) in order to be 100% neutral. Falling short of this violates the due process clause in my opinion.

Every criminal defense attorney in California should seek relief from the Federal Courts on behalf of their client (any person with a traffic ticke)t. The traffic “Hellhole” is not fixed at all. The court fees remain and until they are gone the traffic hellhole remains.